jerryskids

Yeah, that's what we do.

Any Lefties perplexed as to how Kamala isn't more popular might learn something from this.

Like, NABJ? You may recall, Kamala wouldn't go on there initially. Of course, she eventually did, and it was a love fest.

Thoughts on my observation that the rate of the rate of change is negative (decreasing) under Biden?

Trump's last year? Covid? This is a joke statement, right? You've ignored my point about the stock market twice, I'm done on that. Your goalposts on unemployment move with every response. Most importantly, if working class folks were doing well in this economy, Kamala would be running on it. She isn't.

I am epically bad at pretend football this year, in all my leagues. In this one in particular, it seems I'm favored most weeks, and then my team shiots the bed on game day. I did take the high risk/reward approach of going big on Cardinals assets -- their offense was supposed to be very good, and their defense fairly bad, so shootouts were predicted. Oops.

Sorry we couldn't connect as well! Yeah, I know. He's been an even bigger PITA than usual recently, thinking he has some big "gotcha" about what a "conservative" is. Idiots like weepaws in the Republican party got Kari Lake chosen as our Senate nominee. She supported the 1864 law prohibiting all abortions at one point. Guess what? She's going to get her ass kicked in the general by Ruben Gallego, a very liberal/progressive Democrat. He continues to support that 1864 ban. If that were still in place, Prop 139 would win in a landslide, which adds to our Constitution the right to abortion until birth. Instead we got the newer, 15 week ban, and with it a decent chance of blocking Prop 139 for going too far. To weepaws simple mind, he is doing right by his surfer dood God by this position. I think if he truly listened to God, he'd hear the message to not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

That chart is interesting: the second derivative (the direction of the rate of change) appears negative for the first time during the Biden/Harris years. That's a bit concerning, as it points to a possible eventual flattening out or decrease if it continues. Stock market comment is non-responsive. "Looks really low" is not "historically low." And as I pointed out from the graph provided, it is increasing.

Yes, 2.4% is too high. It's 20% higher than the 2% target. Regarding your Trump whataboutism, I've never supported his tariff "plan." I've stated to @The Real timschochetthat I think it is all blather as part of his "Art of the Deal" approach to negotiation, but I must admit that Trump is doing a good job of convincing me he is serious about it. If he does ignore his advisors and implements it, hopefully it will be on a small scale initially (like, maybe autos only?) and he/we can assess the impacts. That being said, some amount of tariffs are a weapon in the arsenal of striking a balance between affordable goods and domestic employment. In that vein, I would turn the question around and say: do you oppose all tariffs, or just think Trump's proposal goes too far?

For inflation in the general sense, macro things would be 1. Not issue multiple trillion dollar money printing boondoggles like the Inflation Increase Act, and 2. not encourage the Fed to reduce rates by 0.5 pts when we are still not at the 2.0% target inflation. For gas specifically, invest more in domestic exploration, extraction, transportation, and refining. For food (and gas), I'd appoint smart people (think top management consultant types) to do a deep dive on the entire supply chains, and identify targeted opportunities for improvement. For instance, I've learned recently that our ports are among the most inefficient in the first world. I'm not sure throwing all that money at the union really helps us to be competitive.

Somebody with the balls to make a difficult choice for Trump in this election, as the lesser of two evils. You aren't one. HTH

Sure economic growth is good. The thing is, if you start from a very bad position, it isn't hard to show "growth." A high stock market is generally good, but that doesn't help the average person buy food and gas. Unemployment is not historically low according to this link. In fact it seems to be creeping back up: https://www.bls.gov/charts/employment-situation/civilian-unemployment-rate.htm

On a different note: I was reading back thru the bullet points above, and saw something about "protecting crypto investments." Wut? Is this the start of a power grab the the US govt on crypto markets? At a minimum, if the government agrees to provide downside protection on crypto investments... what could go wrong?

He knows nothing of the religions he disparages. He only knows that his surfer dood cult is the one and only true way. Because they told him that, probably with his eyelids sewn open.

Point of order: if you give someone $20K and they don't have to pay it back, is it really a "loan"?

I'll have to do no such thing. Answer my question.

So you agree that he shouldn't be on a woman's team, but went out of your way to bump this thread... why exactly? You feel the outrage over this specific player is overblown so... what exactly? What do you hope to accomplish here? It makes no sense.

That's not clear. What does that second quote mean?

I don't understand why you bumped this thread with an apparent justification for this guy competing, apparently because he isn't that good. Feel free to clearly state your position and why you bumped this thread.

Help me understand how the president-elect, or loser in the election, can direct the military to act against citizens? Occam's Razor would indicate that he is talking about military/guard resources keeping the peace, which he believes is threatened by the Left.

Closer to Fine is the only song of theirs I know, and I'll confess that it is a guilty pleasure. That being said, I'm mostly a musicality (vs. lyrics) person, and I honestly don't know the lyrics of the song. I just like the music.

Thanks. I can quibble with each of these, including your #5 which is mind-numbingly dumb, but in the end it is about perception, so I can see how most of these could move the needle a little.

No, my point is that the state was razor close in 2020, and the fracking issue doesn't help. You've made absolutely no case why PA would go from 2020, with Biden from Scranton and decades of history supporting unions and the state in general, to the same or more votes for Kamala and her historic opposition to fracking. Put another way: why would a PA voter vote for Kamala now that didn't vote for Biden in 2020? This seems like a valid concern regarding the federal control of natural gas business for PA.

Technically you didn't, but it was the main thrust of your post, along with the following: So, are you proposing that we should let men compete with women because sometimes, women will win, and that is "just as beneficial or even more so"? What are you saying, and why did you bump this?

Sure, the local politicians support fracking. I don't get your argument that any PA politician would stop fracking in the state. That would be the feds if anyone, hence my statement about the risk of Kamala.